Carl Charles didn't become an athletic director for this. And he's not alone.

"My take on (pay-to-play) is athletics are an extension of the school day; families shouldn't have to pay for athletics," said Charles, the Ridgefield High School athletic director and varsity boys basketball coach.

"(Athletics are) a very important component in the overall educational process of a student. There are so many things that a student can learn from sports that you can't get in the classroom.

"It's just part of the school mission, I think, to provide a well-rounded experience for every student," Charles said. "Whether you're participating in a play or in extracurricular activities, it's huge."

Perhaps just as huge is the inherent burden placed on those in Charles' position since the recent advent -- mostly because of town budget constraints -- of pay-to-play.

Like many of his counterparts, Charles' stance on the practice boils down to this: it's necessary, but not ideal.

At Ridgefield High, it costs $225 to participate in a sport. Unlike other area schools, there is no cap in place to account for students playing on multiple teams, or for families with multiple children participating in sports.

While a fee waiver application can be submitted for students who qualify for the Ridgefield School District's "Free and Reduced Lunch Program," little other relief is available.

Charles is well aware of the mounting costs families are faced with these days.

"The problem I hear a lot is, `We're paying for our kid to play the sport. We pay to go in and see them play the sport. We join booster clubs that support sports. When all is said and done, we're paying a lot more than the $225 fee,' " Charles said.

"Then, if you have two or three kids in the family, you're really taking a beating. It adds up. You're buying the equipment that the school doesn't provide. There's a lot of hidden expenses that parents have to pick up the tab for."

Charles and Ridgefield principal Jeffrey Jaslow have attempted to lower, or even, eliminate pay-to-play. But the issue has mostly been taken out of their hands, they say.

"The principal and I have worked hard here to lower the fees," Charles said. "One thing that they haven't done is gone up. We certainly don't want to see it get any higher.

"A couple years ago, we had put in a three-year phase out for pay-to-play," he said. "It's just that our town budget got defeated and that was thrown out as a way to eliminate the fees.

"It's just something that we have to work toward. I don't know what the solution is going to be in the tough economy we're faced with right now."

On the other hand, some smaller schools, such as Shepaug Valley Regional High School, don't consider pay-to-play an option.

In fact, Shepaug Valley athletic director Matt Perachi called the idea a "death sentence" for his school's athletic programs.

"We're a small school and we depend on kids playing two or three sports to keep our athletic programs going," Perachi said.

"I know that kids would not pay-to-play their second or third favorite sports, and in that case, we wouldn't be able to fill out our rosters. It would essentially kill the program."

At Shepaug, the only pay-to-play sport is hockey, which the Spartans play as part of a co-op program with Litchfield.

In order to participate in the sport, Shepaug athletes must pay $600 to the team's booster club and then generate an additional $600 through fundraising. All the money goes directly to the booster club, which pays for equipment, ice time and officials.

Abbott Tech athletic director Jon Nadeau is hopeful that his school -- a vocational institution that has an athletic program funded by state taxpayer money -- never institutes pay-to-play.

"It does appear that (pay-to-play) is becoming the norm and not the exception anymore," Nadeau said. "At Abbott, we are hoping to stay away from it as long as possible.

"I feel that once a school adopts this policy, there is no turning back, and it will most likely always be the policy once it is implemented. Unfortunately, it has become a reality across the country, not just in our area."

Immaculate High athletic director Michael Bierwirth spoke of similar concerns at the Danbury parochial school, where pay-to-play isn't even entertained.

"It's an inconvenience to the parents," Bierwirth said. "And we need as many kids playing as possible."

Although Brookfield High has pay-to-play -- students pay a flat fee of $125 regardless of how many sports they participate in during the year -- athletic director Chris McDougal is certainly not a proponent of the system.

"I would absolutely love to get rid of it," McDougal said. "I don't think you should have to pay to participate in athletics. Athletics are the second half of education."